Findings of Fact and Conclusion - SRF...

Findings of Fact and Conclusion

TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project S.P. 2750-92

Proposer: City of Brooklyn Park

RGU: Minnesota Department of Transportation

Date: January 2017

TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project i City of Brooklyn Park Findings of Fact and Conclusion

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Administrative Background .......................................... 1-1

Chapter 2 Finding of Fact ................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Project Description ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Changes in the Project and New Information Since Completion of the EAW ....................................................................................................................... 2-2

Chapter 3 Agency and Public Comments on the EAW ............... 3-1

3.1 Summary of Comments from the Public .................................................... 3-1

3.2 Summary of Comments from Agencies ...................................................... 3-1

Chapter 4 Decision Regarding Need for an Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Impacts ................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Stormwater Management ..................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Groundwater ......................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.3 Aquatic Resources ................................................................................ 4-2

4.1.4 Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................. 4-3

4.1.5 Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ............................................................................. 4-4

4.1.6 Construction Noise .............................................................................. 4-4

4.1.7 Right of Way Impacts .......................................................................... 4-4

4.1.8 Summary of Finding With Respect to Criteria ................................. 4-5

4.2 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects ................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3 Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority ............................................................... 4-5

4.4 Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Environmental Studies ................................. 4-6

Chapter 5 Conclusions ..................................................................... 5-1

TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project ii City of Brooklyn Park Findings of Fact and Conclusion

Appendices

Appendix A: Project Layout Figures

Appendix B: Agency and Public Comments on the EAW

Appendix C: Responses to Comments

Appendix D: Affidavit of Publication

I:\Projects\8757\EP\Reports\FOFC\3_Final\2750-92_169_101st_FOFC_160125.docx

Administrative Background

TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project 1-1 City of Brooklyn Park Findings of Fact and Conclusion

Chapter 1 Administrative Background

The City of Brooklyn Park proposes construction of a new full access interchange at the Trunk Highway (TH) 169/101st Avenue intersection. Additional project elements include reconstruction of 101st Avenue from Jefferson Highway to Xylon Avenue; addition of auxiliary lanes along TH 169 between TH 610 and the proposed interchange; construction of stormwater ponds; and construction of trails and sidewalks. Figure 1, Appendix A and Figure 2, Appendix A illustrate the project location. Additional information regarding the proposed project is provided in Section 2.1 (Project Description).

An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared for the project. The City of Brooklyn Park is the project proposer. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the proposed project. The EAW has been prepared in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. The EAW was developed to assess the impacts of the project and other circumstances in order to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed.

The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for review and comment to the required EAW distribution list. A “Notice of Availability” was published in the EQB Monitor on October 24, 2016. A news release was distributed by MnDOT Metro District to media outlets in the surrounding area and published on the MnDOT website at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/news/16/10/25-hwy169public.html. A legal advertisement, announcing the availability of the EAW and information regarding the public open house meeting, was published in the Brooklyn Park Sun Post (see affidavit of publication in Appendix D).

The EAW was made available for public review on the TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project website at http://projects.srfconsulting.com/hwy169and101st/pdf/2750-92_169_101stAve_EAW_161012.pdf. Paper copies of the EAW were also made available for public review at the following locations:

• Brooklyn Park City Hall, 5200 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443

• Hennepin County Library – Brooklyn Park, 8500 West Broadway Avenue, Brooklyn Park, MN 55445

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/news/16/10/25-hwy169public.html

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/news/16/10/25-hwy169public.html

http://projects.srfconsulting.com/hwy169and101st/pdf/2750-92_169_101stAve_EAW_161012.pdf

http://projects.srfconsulting.com/hwy169and101st/pdf/2750-92_169_101stAve_EAW_161012.pdf

Administrative Background


• Hennepin County Library – Minneapolis Central, Government Documents, 2nd Floor, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401

• MnDOT Metro District Water’s Edge Building, 1500 West County Road B2, Roseville, MN 55113

• MnDOT Library, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55155

A public open house meeting was held for the project on Thursday, November 10, 2016 from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm at Grace Fellowship Church (8601 101st Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55445). Twenty-eight (28) individuals attended the public open house meeting. Copies of the EAW, display boards, and the preliminary design layout were available for review during the public open house meeting.

The EAW public comment period was held until November 23, 2016. Seven written comments were received during the EAW comment period. All comments received during the EAW comment period were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Comments received during the comment period are provided in Appendix B. Responses to substantive comments are provided in Appendix C.

Based upon the information in the project record, which is composed of the EAW for the proposed project, the issues raised during the public comment period, the responses to the comments, and other supporting documents, MnDOT makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions.

Findings of Fact


Chapter 2 Finding of Fact

2.1 Project Description Figure 3 through Figure 5, Appendix A illustrate the preliminary design layout for the proposed project. The TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project would consist of the following features:

• Construct a folded diamond interchange at the TH 169/101st Avenue intersection;

• Construct an auxiliary lane on southbound TH 169 between the TH 169/101st Avenue southbound entrance loop ramp and exit ramp to westbound TH 610;

• Construct an auxiliary lane on northbound TH 169 between the exit ramp from westbound TH 610 and the TH 169/101st Avenue northbound exit loop ramp;

• Reconstruct 101st Avenue from Jefferson Highway to the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue interchange. Figure 3 and Figure 4, Appendix A illustrate this segment of 101st Avenue as a four-lane section roadway. This segment of 101st Avenue could also be reconstructed as a three-lane section roadway (i.e., one westbound lane and one eastbound lane with a center turn lane). The number of lanes on this section of 101st Avenue will be determined during final design;

• Reconstruct 101st Avenue from the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue interchange to Xylon Avenue as a four-lane section roadway;

• Construct a new access to the Grace Fellowship Church in the southeast quadrant of the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue interchange. Figure 4, Appendix A illustrates one concept for providing this access from a future extension of Xylon Avenue south of 101st Avenue. The final configuration for this will be determined as part of the right of way process, as well as future development and local road plans for lands south of 101st Avenue.

• Construct a stormwater pond in the southeast corner of the 101st Avenue and Jefferson Highway;

• Construct stormwater ponds and infiltration/filtration basins in the northwest and northeast quadrants of the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue interchange; and

Findings of Fact


• Construction of trails and/or sidewalks along 101st Avenue from Jefferson Highway to Xylon Avenue.

2.2 Changes in the Project and New Information Since Completion of the EAW There have been no changes in the project design. No new information is available since completion of the EAW.

Agency and Public Comments on the EAW


Chapter 3 Agency and Public Comments on the EAW

MnDOT received six agency comment letters and one citizen comment during the EAW comment period (see Appendix B). Written responses are provided for all substantive comments submitted during the EAW 30‐day comment period, which concluded on November 23, 2016 (see Appendix C). Responses were not provided for comments of general opinions or statements of preference, or issues outside of the project.

3.1 Summary of Comments from the Public One public comment was received as an email during the EAW comment period. This comment was in regards to the identification of the TH 169/101st Avenue interchange location and suggestion for an alternative interchange concept.

3.2 Summary of Comments from Agencies Comment letters were received from the following state and local agencies:

• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

• Metropolitan Council

• Hennepin County

• Three Rivers Park District

• West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission

• City of Maple Grove

The following topics summarize the issues identified in the agency comment letters:

• Erosion control and in-water best management practices;

• Sewer interceptors;

• Rush Creek Regional Trail corridor and vegetation re-establishment;

• Rush Creek Regional Trail and procedures for conversion of Three Rivers Park District property;

• Stormwater runoff, water quality, volume control, erosion control, and wetlands; and



• Configuration of the 101st Avenue corridor between TH 169/101st Avenue and the design of the 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection.

Decision Regarding Need for an Environmental Impact Statement


Chapter 4 Decision Regarding Need for an Environmental Impact Statement

Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 provides that an environmental impact statement shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following four factors described in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp.7 shall be considered:

A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;

B. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project;

C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and

D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.

Key findings with respect to each of these criteria are set forth below:

4.1 Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Impacts MnDOT finds that the analysis completed for the EAW is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW described the type and extent of impacts to the natural and built environment anticipated to result from the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange project. The information in the EAW and public/agency comments received during the public comment period (see Appendix B) were taken into account in considering the type, extent, and



reversibility of project impacts. Following are the key findings regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and the design features included to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts:

4.1.1 Stormwater Management

Existing impervious surface area within the project area is approximately 13.8 acres. The proposed project is anticipated to increase the amount of impervious surfaces by approximately 7.6 acres. Stormwater runoff from the proposed roadways will be collected in curb and gutter and storm sewer pipes and conveyed to stormwater ponds and infiltration basins. A stormwater pond would be located in the southeast corner of the 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection. Additional stormwater ponds and infiltration basins would be located within the TH 169/101st Avenue interchange area (see Figure 3 through Figure 5, Appendix A). Stormwater management features will be designed consistent with regulatory requirements in place at the time of final design.

A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be developed during final design as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater permitting process.

4.1.2 Groundwater

The appropriate DNR groundwater appropriation permits would be obtained for any temporary dewatering activities during project construction. Groundwater would be treated prior to discharge as per NPDES permitting requirements.

4.1.3 Aquatic Resources

Aquatic resources were identified within the project area using the Level 1, routine off-site wetland determination method. A Level 2 wetland delineation of the project will be completed in the future prior to wetland permitting.

The proposed project is anticipated to result in approximately 6.8 acres of aquatic resource impacts, including approximately 3.8 acres of existing stormwater features and approximately 3.0 acres of potential wetland areas. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will be provided in accordance with all regulations and requirements in place at the time of final design and permitting.



4.1.4 Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes

Pre-Project Site Conditions

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed in February 2016 to assess the presence of potential contaminated properties within the project area. The Phase I ESA study area included a 500-foot buffer of the preliminary construction limits. High, medium, and low rankings were assigned to each site using criteria established by MnDOT. The ranking is based solely on the sites’ potential for contamination and not on the sites’ location with respect to the proposed construction limits. A copy of the Phase I ESA is available from the City of Brooklyn Park.

Two medium ranked sites were identified in the Phase I ESA study area. No high ranked sites were identified within the study area. If necessary, Phase II drilling investigations will be completed in the future prior to construction at medium potential sites, at other locations where a substantial amount of earthwork is anticipated, and where former buildings occupied right of way to determine if any existing contamination is present. The results of the drilling investigations will be used to determine if any contaminated materials can be avoided or if the project’s impacts can be minimized. If necessary, plans will be developed for properly handling and treating contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction. Any contaminated soils or other potentially hazardous materials encountered during construction will be handled in accordance with regulatory requirements.

Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes

If suitable, excavated excess soil material would be reused onsite for construction of ramps and roadway embankments. Any excess soil material that is not suitable for use on the project site would become the property of the contractor and will be disposed of in accordance with state and federal requirements in place at the time of project construction.

Excess materials and debris will be disposed of in accordance with MnDOT specifications in place at the time of final design and construction. Excess materials and debris will not be placed in wetlands or floodplains.

Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials

Temporary storage tanks for petroleum products may be located in the project area for refueling equipment during roadway construction. Appropriate measures will be taken during construction to avoid spills that could contaminate groundwater or surface water in the project area. In the



event a leak or spill occurs during construction, it will be responded to in accordance with MPCA containment and remedial action procedures.

4.1.5 Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features)

Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state‐listed threatened species, have been reported in the vicinity of the project area and may potentially be encountered during construction. The DNR’s Blanding’s Turtle Fact Sheet will be provided to all contractors working on site, and appropriate measures will be followed if turtles are encountered during construction.

4.1.6 Construction Noise

Elevated noise levels are, to a degree, unavoidable for this type of project. MnDOT will require that construction equipment be properly muffled and in proper working order. While MnDOT and its contractor(s) are exempt from local noise ordinances, it is the practice to require contractor(s) to comply with applicable local noise restrictions and ordinances to the extent that is reasonable. Advanced notice will be provided to affected communities of any planned abnormally loud construction activities. The duration of construction and need for nighttime construction will be determined during the final design of the project. However, construction will be limited to daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) as much as possible.

Any associated high-impact equipment noise, such as pile driving, pavement sawing, or jack hammering, will be unavoidable with construction of the proposed project. Pile driving noise is often associated with bridge construction and sheet-piling. High-impact noise construction activities will be limited in duration to the greatest extent possible.

4.1.7 Right of Way Impacts

The project would require approximately 22.8 acres of permanent right of way acquisition from 13 parcels. The project would require three residential relocations located in the northwest quadrant of the proposed TH 169/101st interchange.

The project would convert approximately 3.3 acres of parkland in the northeast quadrant of the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue interchange. All Metropolitan Council and Three Rivers Park District procedures and requirements for the conversion of parkland, including the acquisition of replacement parkland, will be completed.



4.1.8 Summary of Finding With Respect to Criteria

MnDOT finds that the project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts to the resources evaluated in the EAW and in the Findings summary above. Project impacts will be mitigated as described in the EAW and the Findings above.

4.2 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects As discussed in Item 19 of the EAW, the cumulative potential effect of related or anticipated future transportation and development projects has been considered and the proposed project has low potential for cumulative impacts to the resources directly or indirectly affected by the project. Given laws, rules, and regulations in place, as well as local regulatory requirements and comprehensive planning and zoning laws, substantial adverse cumulative impacts to these resources are not anticipated.

4.3 Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies and will be subject to the plan approval and permitting process. Permits and approvals that have been obtained or may be required prior to project construction include those listed in Table 4.1. The permits listed in Table 4.1 include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the project. Therefore, MnDOT finds that the environmental effects of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authority.

Table 4.1 Permits and Approvals and Current Status

Unit of Government Type of Application Status

Federal

US Army Corps of Section 404 Permit To be applied for Engineers (USACE)

State

Minnesota Department of Public Waters Work Permit To be applied for Natural Resources (DNR)

DNR Temporary Water To be applied for Appropriation Permit (if necessary)

MnDOT Environmental Assessment Completed



Unit of Government Type of Application Status

Worksheet

MnDOT EIS Need Decision To be completed

MnDOT Wetland Conservation Act (Boundary Approval/ Replacement Plan)

To be completed

MnDOT Cooperative Agreement for Construction Projects

To be completed

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit

To be applied for

MPCA Section 401 Certification To be applied for

Local

Metropolitan Council Highway Interchange Request

Completed

Metropolitan Council Controlled Access Approval To be applied for

Metropolitan Council and Three Rivers Park District

Parkland Conversion Request

To be applied for

West Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (WMO)

Stormwater treatment and erosion control review

To be applied for

City of Brooklyn Park Wetland Conservation Act (Boundary Approval/ Replacement Plan)

To be completed

4.4 Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Environmental Studies MnDOT and the City of Brooklyn Park have extensive experience in roadway construction. Many similar projects have been designed and constructed throughout the metropolitan area. No problem is anticipated which the staff of the MnDOT Metro District and City of Brooklyn Park have not encountered and successfully solved many times in similar projects in or near the project area. MnDOT finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of assessment of potential issues during environmental review, and experience in addressing similar issues on previous projects.

Conclusions


Chapter 5 Conclusions

1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has jurisdiction in determining the need for an environmental impact statement on the TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project.

2. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met.

3. The EAW and the permit development processes related to the project have generated information which is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects.

4. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified and will be addressed during future environmental reviews and the final design of the project. Mitigation will be provided where impacts are expected to result from project construction, operation, or maintenance based on requirements in place at that time. Mitigation measures will be incorporated into project design, and will be coordinated with state and federal agencies during the permit process.

5. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subp. 7, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.

6. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project.

7. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be called findings are hereby adopted as such.

Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions contained herein and on the entire record:

The Minnesota Department of Transportation hereby determines that the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project will not result in significant environmental impacts, and that the project does not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

Appendix A

Project Layout Figures

Robbinsdale

§̈¦494

§̈¦94

§̈¦694§̈¦94§̈¦694

Crystal

Edina

GoldenValley

Hopkins

Medina

MinnetonkaMound

NewHope

OakGrove

Orono

Plymouth

Ramsey

Richfield

SaintLouis Park

Wayzata

EastBethel

CorcoranMapleGrove

EdenPrairie

Savage

Bloomington

BrooklynCenter

Minneapolis

BigLake

Becker

Shakopee

Nowthen

Hanover

Hanover

Fridley

CoonRapids

Blaine

Andover

Anoka

Champlin

Ham Lake

Carver

Victoria

Chaska

Minnetrista

Chanhassen

Rogers

Burnsville

Otsego

Buffalo

Greenfield

SaintMichael

BrooklynPark

Delano

Albertville

ElkRiver

Independence

Dayton

Figure 1

J:\Ma

ps\87

57\m

xd\87

57_F

igure

01_A

reaL

ocati

on.m

xd

State Location MapTH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project

Hennepin County, MN

Hennepin County, MN

0 5 102.5Miles

![

Project Location

SP 2750-92

93rd Ave N93rd Ave N

£¤169

UV610

")103

Jeffe

rson

Hw

y

Jeffe

rson

Hw

y

101st Ave101st Ave

Win

netk

a Av

e N

Win

netk

a Av

e N

Oak Grove Pkwy

Oak Grove PkwyW

Bro

adw

ay A

veW

Bro

adw

ay A

ve

Xylo

n Av

eXy

lon

Ave

TTaarrgg

ee tt PPkkww yy

110033rrdd AAvvee

Kilm

er L

aKi

lmer

La

1100 66 tthh AAvvee

Utah Ct

Utah Ct

1st A

ve E

1st A

ve E

22 nndd

AAvv ee

WW

3rd

Ave

W3r

d Av

e W

11 00 77 tthh PPll

9977tthh PPll

110th Ave110th Ave

MMoo nn

tt ii cc ee ll ll ooLL aa

L LaannccaasstteerrL La a

107th Ave107th Ave

105th Pl

105th Pl

OO

xx bb ooww CCrree ee kk CCii rr

Que

bec

Way

Que

bec

Way

98th Ave98th Ave

106th Pl106th Pl

1st A

ve W

1st A

ve W

6th St N6th St N

98th Pl98th Pl

99 99 tt hh PP ll

XX yy ll oo nnCCtt

110055tthh AA vvee

93rd Pl93rd Pl

PPii ll gg rr ii mmWW aa yy

110099tthh PPll

99th Ave99th Ave

109th Cir109th Cir

9922nndd TTrr

Que

bec

Ave

Que

bec

Ave

2nd

Ave

E2n

d Av

e E

3rd

Ave

E3r

d Av

e E

4th

Ave

E4t

h Av

e E

5th

Ave

E5t

h Av

e E

110044tthh AAvvee

FFaa

ii rr WW

aayy

101st Pl101st Pl

Zela

nd A

ve N

Zela

nd A

ve N

110022nndd PPll

11

0033rrdd PPll

1100

22 nndd AAvvee

97th Ave97th Ave

ZZoo pp

ff iiWWaayy

Win

netk

a Av

eW

inne

tka

Ave

Project LocationTH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project

J:\Ma

ps\87

57\m

xd\87

57_F

igure

2A_P

rojec

tLoca

tion.m

xd

Legend

Approximate Project Area

Proposed Improvements

Future Construction by Others

Municipal Boundaries

![

0 1,000 2,000Feet

109th Ave N109th Ave N

H e n n e p i n C o u n t yH e n n e p i n C o u n t y

City of Brooklyn ParkCity of Brooklyn Park

City ofCity ofMapleMapleGroveGrove

City of ChamplinCity of Champlin

Aerial Source: NAIP Minnesota 2015Aerial Source: NAIP Minnesota 2015

Figure 2City of Brooklyn ParkSP 2750-92

Appendix B


Appendix B Agency and Public Comments on the EAW

TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project B-1 City of Brooklyn Park Findings of Fact and Conclusion

Exhibit B1. MPCA Letter (November 22, 2016)

Exhibit B2. Metropolitan Council Letter (November 21, 2016)



Exhibit B3. Hennepin County E-mail (November 23, 2016)

Exhibit B4. Three Rivers Park District Letter, Page 1 (November 23, 2016)



Exhibit B4. Three Rivers Park District Letter, Page 2 (November 23, 2016)

Exhibit B5. West Mississippi WMO Memorandum, Page 1 (November 3, 2016)



Exhibit B6. City of Maple Grove Letter, Page 1 (November 23, 2016)

Exhibit B6. City of Maple Grove Letter, Page 2 (November 23, 2016)



Exhibit B7. Nathan Brunner E-mail (Maple Grove Resident), Page 1 (November 23, 2016)

Exhibit B7. Nathan Brunner E-mail (Maple Grove Resident), Page 2 (November 23, 2016)

Appendix C

Responses to Comments

Appendix C Responses to Comments

TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project C-1 City of Brooklyn Park Findings of Fact and Conclusion

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Letter (November 22, 2016)

Comment #1: This project is not currently funded by the City of Brooklyn Park; however, it will be completed in the next few years if funds become available. When the Project does begin, specific in-water best management practices such as silt curtain, construction during low flow or winter conditions, cofferdam, or check-dams, etc. should be included in the Project construction plans.

Response: Erosion control best management practices will be implemented during construction in accordance with the NPDES construction stormwater permit and stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).

Metropolitan Council Letter (November 21, 2016)

Comment #1: Metropolitan Council Interceptor (9004) is within 101 51 Ave North right-of-way. The interceptor was built in 1997 and is a 54-inch reinforced concrete/lined pipe at a depth of approximately 24 to 31 feet. To assess the potential impacts to our interceptor system, prior to initiating this project, preliminary plans should be sent to Scott Dentz, Interceptor Engineering Manager (651-602-4503) at the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for review and comment.

Response: Construction plans have not yet been prepared for the project. When construction plans are completed, a copy will be sent to Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for review and comment.

Hennepin County E-mail (November 23, 2016)

Comment #1: Although Hennepin County is satisfied with the alternative selection process, it is worth noting this project will negatively impact the only remaining corridor of open space remaining in Brooklyn Park that has the potential of connecting Coon Rapids Regional Dam to Baker Park Preserve via the regional trail. It is also one of the last remaining semi‐natural open spaces that provide habitat to pollinators, wildlife and the potential for the propagation of native vegetation. As such, we request the project is designed to minimize the impact to the open space corridor by creating a buffer to the regional trail, and that all graded areas be restored with native vegetation to the extent possible to establish habitat for pollinators and other wildlife species.

Response: The proposed project interchange would convert approximately 3.3 acres of Three Rivers Park District property to transportation uses in the northeast quadrant of the TH 169/101st Avenue interchange. A buffer will be



maintained between the interchange and the Rush Creek Regional Trail. The TH 169/101st Avenue interchange has been designed to avoid impacts to the existing regional trail bridge over TH 169. All graded areas will be re-vegetated with native vegetation suitable to the local habitat, consistent with MnDOT best management practices in place at the time of construction.

Three Rivers Park District Letter (November 23, 2016)

Comment #1: The Park District property being impacted was purchased by the Park District with Metropolitan Council funding in the late 1970s, along with several other properties in the regional trail corridor between Elm Creek Park Reserve and Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park. As such, Metropolitan Council restrictive convents are associated the property.

As outlined in Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan, restrictive covenants are placed on regional parks system lands, trails and greenways to ensure that these lands are available for regional parks uses, and that the regional investment in these lands is protected. These covenants cannot be broken or amended without Metropolitan Council approval. Under certain exceptional circumstances, the Metropolitan Council will consider release restrictive covenants if equally valuable land or facility is provided in exchange for the released park land.

Additionally, when Park District property is proposed for adverse impacts, the Park District Board policy states, “the Board opposes diversion of Park District property for any purpose other than those for which the lands were acquired. Where proposed diversions of park property appear to be in the best interest of the Park District and where all other alternatives have been exhausted, and where the diversion poses no threat to the Park District’s natural or recreational resource, and only under these conditions, requests will be taken under consideration by the Board on an individual basis.”

In those instances where the Board determines that a proposed diversion upon Park District property may meet these conditions, the following requirements are required:

• Restoration of any physical or natural property removed or damaged, or equivalent monetary compensation shall be provided.

• Compensation will reflect the impact of the intrusion on the aesthetic and recreational values of parkland as well as the market value of affected land measured by its highest and best use, and for associated administrative costs.

• In any case where conversion of Park District land to other uses is proposed, applicants must satisfy Metropolitan Council policies



governing such conversions, including but not limited to, the requirement that equally valuable land or facilities be exchanged.

Response: The City of Brooklyn Park has been and will continue to coordinate the TH 169/101st Avenue interchange project development process with Three River Park District. The City of Brooklyn Park will comply will all Metropolitan Council and Three Rivers Park District procedures and requirements for park property conversion.

West Mississippi Watershed Management Organization Memorandum (November 3, 2016)

Comment #1: The treatment provided by the various ponds and sump manholes should provide the amount of treatment necessary, however, calculations should be provided to show the treatment capacity of the stormwater ponds.

Response: Drainage design calculations will be provided to the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission during final design as part of the project review process.

Comment #2: Commission rules require that site runoff be limited to predevelopment rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year storm events. Calculations should be provided to determine that post‐development rates are lower than predevelopment rates.

Response: Calculations showing that post‐development stormwater runoff rates are lower than pre-development rates will be provided to the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission during final design as part of the project review process.

Comment #3: Commission rules require the site to infiltrate 1.0” of runoff from new impervious area within 48 hours. The project proposes 7.6 acres of new impervious surface from the addition of roads, trails, sidewalks, and turn lanes. This amount of impervious surface requires 27,588 cubic feet. (0.63 acre-feet) of infiltrative capacity. The current project area does include rate control ponds. With the inclusion of new stormwater ponds in the project, it is recommended that filtration trenches or other filtration BMPs included in the new pond construction as allows.

Response: The stormwater management plan for the proposed project includes stormwater ponds and infiltration basins (see Figure 3 through Figure 5, Appendix A). The proposed infiltration basins are located in areas where there are currently infiltration basins; therefore, it is likely that infiltration would continue to occur with the proposed project. Additional geotechnical information, including soil borings, would be obtained during



final design. If infiltration is not feasible due to soil types or the presence of groundwater, then the proposed stormwater treatment system would likely only consist of stormwater ponds.

The stormwater management plan for the proposed project will be reviewed as part of the final design process and revised to reflect West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission rules and regulations in place at that time.

Comment #4: An erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention plan should be developed for the project.

Response: An erosion control and SWPPP will be developed during final design as part of the permitting process.

Comment #5: The NWI identified six wetlands within the project area. The Commission is LGU for WCA Administration and will review wetland impacts due to fill and hydrology alterations. Table 5 in the EAW shows all wetlands will be filled post construction. As part of design these must be delineated and if necessary a mitigation plan prepared.

Response: A Level 2 wetland delineation will be completed in the future prior to permitting. MnDOT will function as the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) local government unit (LGU) for aquatic resources within MnDOT right of way. The West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission will function as the WCA LGU for areas outside of MnDOT right of way along 101st Avenue. Aquatic resource impacts will be identified during final design using the Level 2 wetland delineation boundaries. The appropriate Section 404 and WCA permits and approvals will be obtained. A mitigation plan will be prepared for unavoidable wetland impacts.

Comment #6: 101st Avenue crosses a public watercourse approximately immediately east of Jefferson Highway. This is public water (#254W). As part of design these must be delineated and if necessary a mitigation plan prepared.

Response: The wetland boundary and ordinary high water level (OHWL) for public water #254W will be identified as part of the Level 2 wetland delineation. A DNR public water work permit will be obtained for any fill below the OHWL at public water #254W.

Comment #7: Additional information needed for the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission:



• Calculations showing the amount of storage and to demonstrate that the project meets the Commission’s water quality standards and rate control standards;

• Provide infiltration BMPs to meet the Commission’s Volume control standards. Provide an abstraction volume equivalent to 1-inch of runoff from new impervious surfaces (27,588 cu‐ft.);

• Create erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention plans to meet the Commission’s erosion control standards.

• Complete necessary WCA documentation.

Response: The additional requested information will be provided to the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission as part of the project review process.

City of Maple Grove Letter (November 23, 2016)

Comment #1: The proposed four-lane divided 101st Avenue east of Jefferson Highway is inconsistent with the two-lane 101st Avenue west of Jefferson Highway in the City of Maple Grove’s Comprehensive Plan. The City of Maple Grove does not believe that the existing traffic signal will provide an adequate transition between the proposed four-lane divided roadway east of Jefferson Highway and the two-lane undivided west of Jefferson Highway.

Response: A four-lane roadway for 101st Avenue between Jefferson Highway and TH 169 was identified in the EAW for purposes of identifying a worst-case scenario with respect to the future roadway footprint and potential impacts. The City of Brooklyn Park has acknowledged, and the traffic forecasts support, that 101st Avenue east of Jefferson Highway to TH 169 could be reconstructed as a three-lane urban section roadway (i.e., one through lane in each direction with a center turn lane).

The 2030 forecast volume for 101st Avenue between Jefferson Highway and TH 169 is approximately 13,000 vehicles per day (vpd). An updated 2040 forecast volume for 101st Avenue will be prepared as part of future design and engineering studies using the Metropolitan Council’s most recent travel demand model. The typical section for 101st Avenue between Jefferson Highway and TH 169 will be identified based on the outcome of the future traffic forecasts. Consideration will also be given to available project funding. At this time, a three-lane section roadway appears likely.



Comment #2: The City of Maple Grove has long expressed our preference for a roundabout to be installed at the 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection. This preference is based on the following considerations:

• A roundabout report the better traffic operations (lowest delays and subsequently better LOS) when compared to traffic signal control.

• A roundabout not only provides a transition east of Jefferson Highway by dropping one lane in each direction along 101st Avenue between the proposed TH 169 interchange and Jefferson Highway, but it also will slow speeds and transition behavior through the intersection by constructing a roundabout at the 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection.

• While a roundabout may require the reconstruction of the 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection, and will likely have higher initial construction costs when compared to the existing traffic signal, the proposed roundabout will likely have much lower severity rates when it comes to crashes, and lower ongoing operating/maintenance costs when compared to traffic signal control at the intersection.

• The proposed roundabout is also consistent with the recent approach by Champlin, Maple Grove, and MnDOT that uses roundabouts on 109th Avenue (west of TH 169), 117th Avenue (east of TH 169), Zachary Lane (north of TH 610), and Elm Creek Boulevard (north of TH 610) as an effective transition from higher speed/volume facilities to lower speed/volume residential areas.

Therefore, the EAW should directly address the recommended intersection configuration of the 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection within the document rather than waiting until future development occurs along the corridor.

Response: Several different intersection concepts were analyzed for 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway during the project development process for the TH 169/101st Avenue interchange, including traffic signal concepts and a roundabout concept. The traffic signal concepts considered different options for the lane configuration on the 101st Avenue eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection. Table C.1 shows the existing, 2030 No Build Alternative, and 2030 Build Alternative intersection operations analysis results for 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway.



Table C.1 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway LOS Results – Future Intersection Concepts

101st Avenue/ Jefferson Highway Intersection

Delay (s/veh) AM Peak Hour

LOS AM Peak Hour

Delay (s/veh) PM Peak Hour

LOS PM Peak Hour

Existing Conditions (Signal)

10 B 9 A

2030 No Build Alternative (Signal)

15 B 15 B

Signalized Scenario 1

26 C 12 B


27 C 12 B


29 C 13 B


29 C 13 B

Roundabout 17 C 9 A

s/veh = seconds per vehicle

It is feasible to design and construct the future 101st Avenue roadway to match the existing 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection without reconstructing the entire 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection. Minor lane restriping may be necessary to accommodate lane configurations. The traffic operations analysis shows that there is not an existing operations problem at this location. The intersection is expected to continue to operate acceptably under 2030 No Build Alternative conditions, and the intersection concepts would also operate acceptably under 2030 Build Alternative conditions. As noted above, 101st Avenue east of Jefferson Highway could be reconstructed as a three-lane section roadway. The three-lane section roadway could also be designed and constructed to match the existing 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection configuration. The 101st Avenue roadway design east of Jefferson Highway would not preclude any of the intersection concepts identified in Table C.1.

The City of Brooklyn Park will continue to work with the City of Maple Grove to identify a future intersection configuration for 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway that addresses the needs of both municipalities. This may result in a roundabout at this location phased in over time as development, right of way, and funding opportunities become available. Future improvements at 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway will also be coordinated with Three Rivers Park District, as the Rush Creek Regional Trail crosses Jefferson Highway at 101st Avenue.



Note that the proposed stormwater pond located in the southeast corner of the 101st Avenue/Jefferson Highway intersection has been sized to accommodate the additional impervious surface and footprint associated with a roundabout design (see Figure 3, Appendix A).

Nathan Brunner (Maple Grove Resident) E-mail (November 23, 2016)

Comment #1: My primary concern with Recommended Alternative #2 is that the interchange is too close to the 169 /610 interchange. Traffic entering 169 northbound from 610 westbound will interfere with northbound 169 traffic exiting at 101st Avenue. Similarly, traffic entering 169 southbound from 101st will interfere with southbound traffic exiting at 610. With additional traffic volume that will come with 610 opening to I-94, the dynamics of these interchanges will change. I believe that additional spacing is needed as a buffer against future traffic volume as well as against current volume.

Response: A traffic study was completed as part of the TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Study (December 2014). This study included an evaluation of freeway operations on TH 169 with and without the proposed 101st Avenue interchange using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS). This traffic operations analysis showed that the northbound and southbound TH 169 would safely operate at an acceptable level of service under future (year 2030) traffic volumes with the proposed 101st Avenue interchange.

A high-level microsimulation freeway operations analysis was also completed as part of the December 2014 TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Study. This analysis used the CORSIM computer model to simulate travel lane conditions on TH 169 during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. The CORSIM analysis also included auxiliary lanes on TH 169 between the TH 610 system interchange the proposed 101st Avenue interchange. The CORSIM analysis indicated that the segment of TH 169 between TH 610 and 101st Avenue interchange would operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) C or better under future year 2030 conditions.

The analysis from the December 2014 TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Study was subsequently updated in 2016. Part of this update included a CORSIM microsimulation freeway operations analysis to confirm that the spacing between TH 610 and 101st Avenue is acceptable. Updates to the CORSIM modeling since the December 2014 study are described in the TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Study – Preliminary Design (Phase II), Traffic Analysis Update, TH 169 Freeway Analysis Memorandum (April 2016) available from the City of Brooklyn Park. Traffic operations were reviewed for the segment of TH 169 between the 101st Avenue interchange ramps and TH 610 interchange



ramps. During both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, the 2030 Build Alternative condition with the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue interchange shows improved conditions compared to the No Build Alternative (see Table C.2).

Table C.2 2030 Freeway Operations between TH 610 and 101st Avenue Interchanges

Scenario A.M. Peak Hour LOS (density – vpmpl)

P.M. Peak Hour LOS (density – vpmpl)

No Build Alternative F (96) D (33)

Build Alternative (with TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange)

F (73) C (22)

vpmpl = vehicles per mile per lane

The proposed auxiliary lanes on northbound and southbound TH 169 between 101st Avenue and TH 610 will also help to improve traffic operations by providing additional length for entering traffic to merge onto TH 169 and exiting traffic to diverge from the freeway. The auxiliary lanes provide an additional lane to separate the merging and diverging movements from through traffic.

Comment #2: There is already a problem in this area with northbound 169 traffic in the left lane making a late, sudden lane change to exit to 610 eastbound. Nearly every time I travel that route I have to brake for drivers making this kind of maneuver. There is no reason to believe this won’t happen at the 101st exit from northbound 169. The situation will be worse at 101st due to traffic accelerating onto 169 northbound from the 610 westbound ramp. From my perspective, Alternative #2 has two built-in safety flaws that can be eliminated by the following proposal. A solution to this problem is to build the same type of interchange at 109th Avenue North, except with all elements of the interchange on the south side of 109th. Please refer to the map below with my proposal drawn in red.

Response:

TH 169 Traffic Operations

The late, sudden lane change observed for the exit from northbound TH 169 to eastbound TH 610 occurs because the TH 169/610 interchange is a system interchange and there is heavy demand for the northbound to eastbound movement, particularly during the p.m. peak hour. The similar movement at the proposed 101st Avenue interchange is expected to be substantially less than at the TH 169/610 system interchange.



TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Alternatives

The purpose of the project is to enhance access to TH 169 for the planned growth area of northwest Brooklyn Park, provide the transportation infrastructure necessary to serve the planned growth areas in northwest Brooklyn Park, and better distribute regional trips from existing interchanges.

A range of interchange concepts were considered as part of the TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Study (December 2014). These concepts included different interchange configurations along TH 169 north of 101st Avenue. Early concepts considered an interchange at TH 169 and 109th Avenue. However, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration because of its proximity to the 114th Avenue traffic signal (approximately ½-mile to the north). Traffic queues would be expected to extend back from the TH 169/114th Avenue signal through the 109th Avenue interchange. The proposed spacing between the 101st Avenue interchange and 109th Avenue provides more than twice the distance compared to 109th Avenue and 114th Avenue.

An interchange north of 101st Avenue does not provide the transportation infrastructure necessary to serve the regional travel demands of the planned growth area in northwest Brooklyn Park. Additional access to and from the regional roadway system is needed. Upgrading the current regional access at 109th Avenue from an at-grade signalized intersection to an interchange would not be sufficient compared to an interchange at 101st Avenue.

In addition, the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue interchange also helps to distribute trips throughout the project area. A majority of all trips generated in the planned growth area of northwest Brooklyn Park are regional trips destined to/from to the south. The ramps that provide access to/from the south account for a majority of the trips using the proposed 101st Avenue interchange. Very few regional trips from the planned growth area destined to the south would go north to 109th Avenue first, and then travel back south on TH 169. It is more likely that these trips would use the TH 610/West Broadway Avenue interchange to access westbound TH 610 and then southbound TH 169. This ramp currently operates at capacity during the a.m. peak hour, creating merging issues with traffic on TH 169 at the TH 610 system interchange. With the proposed TH 169/101st Avenue interchange, more traffic accesses southbound TH 169 at 101st Avenue, improving traffic operations at the TH 169/TH 610 system interchange.

Appendix D

Affidavit of Publication

Appendix D Affidavit of Publication

TH 169/101st Avenue Interchange Project D-1 City of Brooklyn Park Findings of Fact and Conclusion

Exhibit D1. Affidavit of Publication (Brooklyn Park Sun Post)

Findings of Fact and Conclusion - SRF...

Documents

Transcript of Findings of Fact and Conclusion - SRF...